|
||
The Florida and Michigan Do-Overs and the Virtues of the "Half-Nelson"
The more I think about how to handle the Democratic delegates from Michigan and Florida, the more I am convinced that a revote, especially in Florida, is the wrong way to go and that some kind of political compromise, such as seating the Florida delegates but giving them half a vote each, or splitting the delegates 50/50 between Sens. Clinton and Obama, is the best way to go. In this post, I first lay out my reasoning and then talk about how to get there.
1. The Equities for and Against a Revote. I begin by taking off the table the possibility that the delegates from Michigan and Florida should be seated based on the results of elections that violated the DNC rules. As I've said, "Yes, we had a contest, but it was a contest run under unusual rules....Candidates were not allowed to campaign, and voters were told by the D.N.C. their votes wouldn't count. That kind of election doesn't comport with our usual democratic norms." Beyond that possibility, there are fairly compelling equitable arguments both for not seating the delegates and for holding some kind of revote, if it is technically feasible to do so. The argument for not seating the delegates is that the rules were set forth in advance and known by everyone -- Florida and Michigan gambled that their delegates would be counted and lost. On the other hand, such a decision would penalize the voters of Florida and Michigan, who did not make the decision about when to vote. That decision was made by party officials and the states. Even putting aside the negative political implications of not seating Florida and Michigan, voters in these states deserve some representation at the convention, if only to vote on the party platform and other decisions.
One complicating factor is the disincentive a revote will create next time around for states deciding whether or not to abide by DNC rules. Indeed, under current DNC rules, states that hold their primaries after May 1 get a 30% delegate bonus at the convention. And the contests would take on more importance than even the delegate count (which, given the Democrats' proportional rules, won't be enough for either Clinton or Obama to capture enough delegates to avoid the nomination being decided by superdelegates.) Politically, the winner of these two late contests will get extra momentum with two large, late primaries. It would be ironic, if not crazy, to give these benefits to those states that broke the rules.
2. The Election Administration Difficulties with a Revote. My main concern with a revote (apart from the disincentive of states to follow the rules next time) comes from the election administration difficulties of pulling it off. In an earlier post I noted the danger of doing a vote-by-mail election for the first time in Florida in such a high stakes election. A recent New York Times article shows that vote by mail can be done in a fair way (putting aside the possibility of the buying of absentee votes), but that it takes time to set up. There's simply no way to do it in time.
If you want an election in Florida the way to do it is with paper and pencil. A ballot containing the names of Clinton, Obama, and Gravel (if he's still running) would be marked with an "x" at state-run polling places with ballots counted by hand. Absentee ballots would be needed for those who can't get to the polls and for overseas voters.
Michigan is in a better position administratively to put on a primary or caucus, but there is still fighting over the details. I turn now to this point.
3. The Fairness Issues with Structuring a Revote, and the Danger of Litigation. The current legislative proposal (pdf) contains a controversial proposal: anyone who voted in the Republican primary in Michigan (which includes many Democrats and Independents) won't be able to vote again this time around. This raises a serious fairness concern, because voters who voted in the Republican primary did not know and could not have known that their vote there would then bar them, under state law, from voting in a months-later primary on the Democratic side. I expect that if this Michigan provision is enacted into law it could be challenged in court by Obama supporters -- who would have a chance of winning the argument that the Michigan law is unconstitutional. It is not clear how such a case would come out, but it would bury the Democrats deeper in the muck.
4. The Superiority of Political Compromise. For this reason, the best way out of this conundrum is a political compromise. One possibility is a 50-50 split of delegates, which provides some representation for both sides and for both states. Another possibility, which has been floated by Bill Nelson and others (hence the name half-Nelson), is to award Florida delegates based on the result of the earlier contests but with each delegate getting only half a vote. Clinton would get a 19 delegate bump, but would not get the chance to increase her delegate lead. That has something for each side to cheer -- though Clinton would likely prefer to roll the dice and try to get a big PR boost (if not delegate boost) from a later Florida contest. Settling Florida and Michigan would be good for the Democratic party, allowing it to move on with less uncertainty to the process of resolving the nomination issue and focus on the general election contest.
5. How to Get There From Here. Imagine a closed door meeting with the two candidates, Al Gore, Howard Dean, John Edwards and Bill Richardson. The four non-candidates get behind such a plan and tell each candidate to do so as well. If not the four hold a press conference and explain which candidate or candidate refused to compromise for the benefit of the Democratic party.
In short, resolution requires political leadership from the DNC and other nationally recognized Democratic leaders who have not committed to one side or the other. They have to use a different kind of half-Nelson.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I am with you that seating just half of the delegation could be a fair solution. HOWEVER, I am ***TOTALLY*** against the idea, floated exclusively, far as I can tell, by Obama supporters, of seating all the delegates but arbitrarily splitting them 50/50 between the two remaining candidates. That would not be based on the votes at all and thus would be actively MIS-representing the record number of voters that turned out, as opposed to "merely" not representing us at all, which not seating the delegates would accomplish. MIS-representing voters is the single worst idea of all, and totally preposterous, in my strong opinion. Either seat our delegates based on the vote of 1/29, seat half our delegates based on the vote of 1/29, or don't seat our delegates at all. A re-vote in Florida is not going to be possible at this point because the mail-in is fraught with opportunity for fraud and disaster, and the actual voting machines are being replaced and so we don't have ANY in many major precincts, so we couldn't do an in-person primary "do-over". So, again: either seat our delegates (my STRONG preference), seat half of our delegates (which would be okay with me as a Florida Democrat and also, by the way, is what the precious "RULES" of the DNC state should have happened in the first place, yet Howard Dean chose to go postal on us), or don't seat the delegates (in which case, us Florida voters will be quite...animated, shall we say...at the convention, so get those TV cameras ready, big networks). But do NOT even THINK of misrepresenting the voters by a 50/50 delegate split, which would be arbitrary and TOTALLY contrary to the whole point of elections and delegates. Delegates are there to represent the will of the people.
To the folks advocating a hardline approach to punish Michigan officials who made this decision: The bulk of the punishment will end up being to Michigan voters, who had very little to say about primary scheduling. It is foolish to think that voters angry at being disenfranchised are going to spend a lot of time determining exactly who within the Democratic party is responsible for this mess and then try to punish them politically. Those of us who are pissed off by this are going to vote for the other guys in November, or else stay home. Keep in mind that the Democratic party can punish us in the primary election, which is essentially a private affair, but not in the general election, which is what really counts.
To the folks advocating a 50/50 split: This makes the unfortunate assumption that Michigan voters are idiots who don't realize that giving half of the votes to one team and half to the other has exactly the same effect as giving no votes to anybody. Either way, it does not reflect the will of Michigan voters at all.
I've read news articles about large donors to the DNC in Florida asking for their money back if the situation isn't resolved, and getting it. On my Web site at http://WhoStoleMiVote.org/ I've heard from lots of regular Democratic supporters who are not planning to donate to the candidates or parties this year because of this issue. I've heard from some people who are not going to vote for Democrats this year because of this issue. That's what I'm planning to do if this isn't resolved.
Failing to resolve this in a fair way is going to cost the Democrats a lot of money in lost donations over the next few months, and maybe even Michigan and Florida in November. I hope the people in a position to fix the situation realize this.
Excellent comment, sgifford. I recognize a fellow disenfranchised voter when I read one! You are in Michigan, I'm in Florida, but we are in the same disenfranchised boat. And while I would never vote for "the other guys", I also am heartbroken to report that I find myself unable to vote for Obama, should he become our nominee, in November, even though I am a lifelong, loyal, passionate Democrat who has voted in every election of her life. Why won't I vote Obama if he becomes our nominee? Why will I stay home for the first time in my LIFE? Well, it isn't because I don't like Obama as a candidate, even though I don't. No, I would normally line up behind our nominee, despite his or her shortcomings. But Obama has done something that I, as a Florida Democratic voter and an ardent Al Gore supporter who remembers 2000 all too well can NEVER forgive: he has repeatedly, snearingly, dismissively and oh-so-clearly stated and had his campaign mouthpieces state that my vote should NOT count in the primary. In fact, he had John Kerry come out on the night of the Florida election, when the polls had barely closed on the record turnout of 1.7 million Democratic voters, and declare as an official statement to the media by the Obama campaign that Florida's election results were, quote, an "Illegitimate fabrication". THAT is the very moment that Obama lost my vote in November. If he doesn't want my illegitimate fabrication to count in the primary, he sure as heck is not going to get my illegitimate fabrication in the general election.
Watch Florida turn red and weep, Obama. I know for sure that I will. I'll weep, you can be sure of it. Weep for what happened in 2000, weep for the last seven years of ruination that shrub has put us through, and weep for the sequel that I'll see playing out in front of me in 2008. But what I won't do, is vote for you, Obama, since you don't want my vote to count now. In fact, you don't even see it as a vote. It's an illegitimate fabrication.
All righty, then.
MI, FL, Obama, Clinton and the Democratic Party agreed that the votes in MI and FL wouldn't count. Why should they count now?
NO!! These 313 delegates should not vote at the convention (but one could/should make the case for their superdelegates being seated), which leaves 3,737 total delegates (pledge + super), making the total needed for clinching the nomination 1,869.
Any questions?
Yes, I have a question: what are you smoking? The Democratic parties of Florida and Michigan NEVER agreed that the votes in MI and FL shouldn't count. The millions upon millions of innocent voters never agreed that our votes shouldn't count. We all been up in arms about it ever since Dean announced his asanine "punishment", and in the case of the FL Dem party, even before that, when they TRIED to get the date pushed back after 2/5, but the REPUBLICANS wouldn't hear of it. Howard Dean, Donna Brazile and the DNC are NOT "the Democratic party". Us rank and file Democrats didn't elect Dean to anything. And the precious "rules" state that he should only have taken away HALF of our delegates.
Vic Di'Maio didn't agree and currently, as a Florida Democrat, he has a federal lawsuit that has been heard in on appeal this week and could get our delegates seated. The credentials committee of the party could decide to seat the delegates. Or, you could just have millions of outraged Democratic voters like me from Florida and Michigan protest on the floor of the convention. That is how much we "agreed" to this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We're forgetting the purpose of the rule. We want a shorter primary season. This means beginning the primary season later in the year. Because Iowa and New Hampshire are determined to keep their first in the nation status every time a party moves its primary earlier in the year Iowa and New Hampshire do the same. We don't want to start the primary season before Christmas. Starting it the third day of January was bad enough. So we punish those responsible for pushing the date of the first caucus and primary into early January. And if we don't punish those responsible now what is to stop them from pushing the primary season still earlier. After all the rewards for being first in the nation are great and there is no logical reason why Iowa and New Hampshire should always receive them.
Please tell us how a 50/50 split in Florida is fair to Clinton. She clearly won the original vote and would no doubt win a re-vote. 50/50 is just Obamalicious spin. And if someone told me that half my vote was the fair thing, I'd say, "well, just not to me." Get real.
we are angry as heck....Everyone was well informed who went to vote. The Democratic party has lost a great opportunity to blow the republicans away this year instead many democratic voters are going away.
the petition started yesterday has already 70 signers. come join our petition:
http://hillaryisourchoice.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=54.0
Obama ran ads the week leading up to the primary in FL but NOBODY talks about that
Florida and Michigan complained they had to move up their primaries so that they had a say in the choice of candidates. Well those of us who voted early got the choice of voting for many candidates without knowing that most of them would drop out of the race before it got to March and those voting later got to vote for the real contenders. IF Florida and Michigan which violated the rules get to revote for the 2 real serious candidates, then we who followed the rules and voted early for Edwards, Kusinich, Richardson, Dodd, Biden, and Gravel want to also get a revote so we can participate in the real race.
In reality, the politicians in Fla and Mich were more concerned with the amount of contributions that the candidates were taking out of their states and sharing with local politicians in other early states in return for endorsements. They were worried that by May the national candidate(s) usually are not in a close race and won't have to make any contributions to their races. I stopped making contributions to my candidate (Edwards) when I read about how much of the campaign funds were redirected to local candidates here in Iowa and also in New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, etc.... If the DNC wants states to stay in primary calendar order they will have to find some way to spread the contributions to the later states..
NO Super Delegates from either state... We really need to punish the people responsible for this mess.
Why doesn't Florida secede from the Democratic party..many of us will...
come see the outrage:
http://hillaryisourchoice.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=54.0
It was a Republican leadership that decided to move the Florida primary up AGAINST THE PROTESTS OF the Democratic leadership in that state. All three of the candidates were on the ballot. They were equally not supposed to campaign there. The ONLY candidate to campaign there was Barack Obama who ran TV ads. It was FAIR. The DNC needs to seat these delegates as the voters voted. Who is the DNC representing? Are they representing the Republican leadership of Florida or the Democrats who went in droves to the polls to have their voices heard and their votes counted?
Michigan is right in holding a new primary because Barack Obama had removed his name from the ballot, although it was voluntary on his part. I still think the fair thing would be to hold a new primary EXACTLY as the original primary was held.
Let the voices of the People be heard!
If they don't want a do-over, then they should certify the original results.
you are right. it is the right thing to do. HIllary loses over 30 delegates as a result of this decision.
Howard dean's brother has his org essentially endorsing Obama.
come to my forum and see the petition.
http://hillaryisourchoice.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=54.0
Each time Floridians are allowed, or not allowed, anywhere near a voting booth, problems arise. I'm not sure our nation can survive too many Florida voting attempts.
Blaming the voters: NICE (not). In 2000, it was the Republicans impeding a fair election that caused the "problems". In 2008, it is 50% the Republicans pushing through the date that was a violation of party rules, and 50% Howard Dean being an insane idiot. It is 0% the voters' fault. ZERO. Stop blaming the victims!!!
Tempest in a teapot. The state democratic machines were warned and went ahead and violated party primary rules. The reason is irrevelant. As every child knows, or should know, breaking the rules have consequences. There are no do-overs. What part of this do they not understand? If the voters in these two states are rightly upset, the proper recourse is to topple the wheeler -dealers who created this mess. But, for the purposes of this primary, this situation is what we in the Bronx call tough shit. Keep your whining to yourself, vote in the national, and don't let your party bosses do it again. End of story.
The only reason Floridians even went to the polls for the primary is because there was a property tax reduction bill up for a vote. It passed easily. Since they were already at the polling places they voted for the candidate of their choice. I think most knew it did not count but wanted their voices to be heard. If the property tax bill had not been on the table, many would have not bothered showing up.
OK, sure. Obama can have 50% of the Florida and Michigan vote as soon as he gives Hillary 50% of his dubious caucus wins.
When I was a kid, rules were rules. You accepted them and lived with the consequences of breaking them. Florida (thanks to the Republicans) and Michigan were warned that if they moved their primary dates up, they would lose their delegates. They moved them up anyways. The cost of re-doing the primaries in either or both states is astronomical. If there are wealthy individuals who are willing to pay the cost of such re-votes, their generosity would be better spent in helping people in real need rather than bailing out two bad decisions.
I agree with most of it. Like it even.
I don't think that 4 people should hold a gun to their heads and say this is the way the 4 of us are going to make it go.
The 2 votes that were held are not nearly fair. Thinking so is usually based on how it affects your candidate. I think that 50-50% split and no supers is the way to go. That allows the state to be seated, but more importantly, it punishes the elected officials who put us in this mess.
But "the elected official who put us in the mess" are Republican. How does your alternative do anything to punish them? would it hurt you to read up on this a bit before you go shooting your mouth off?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
